Hi all again,
A situation has sort of come up that I would like your advice on.
Basically speaking throughout my PhD my plans for research publications have changed. However I was under the impression that at my last milestone they were pretty much good to go and that my supervisor agreed with all this and was in on the plan.

Fast forward to last Friday supervisor talks to be briefly while walking to a seminar about paper plans to which he outlined his idea in about 30secs to which I responded "I may have some different ideas". So later that evening he sends an email out to a few of us with this plan. And I have to say it's not a bad plan, there are few strange bits in there which I wouldn't do because I don't think it adds anything to the paper. But what got me was the list of authors on his plan which was commented "rder to be arranged at end to fairly reflect contribution.".

Now the general idea of this paper was to be mine. And as far as I am concerned it contains most of my data although supervisor has listed some data analysis to be performed by others (which I will fight to do).

Now the paper plan as he's written is slightly more vast then what I was going to do. And while it may be a higher impact paper, it's much better for me to be first author of a lower impact paper containing my work then a second author on a higher impact paper. So I am prepared to veto the plan and remove permission for the use of my data which would ruin the paper plan as it stands.

But am I permitted to do that? As a paid researcher I know that the data and any ideas developed on my paid time is technically owned by the lab. But how does this stand as a PhD student and how much say do I have in how it is used?

Who is writing the paper? The person actually writing the paper is usually first author.

If you are largest contributor of data but are not actually writing the paper, then I'd say being listed as second author is actually reasonable. If you are writing the paper as well as contributing the bulk of the data, then you should be first author.

I'll add that at this stage you are a student and have not yet been awarded your PhD. In your position, I'd concentrate on doing what is necessary to achieve that aim and go along with your supervisor's wishes. You do not want to ailienate your supervisor whilst you are a student, as you may find the supervisor becomes less supportive, more ambivolent and even hostile towards you.

Unless you have an industrial sponsor or there are other stipulations in any agreement you signed when you started your PhD, you are correct in that you hold the intellectual ownership of the data. However, owning the data does not necessarily mean you have right to be first author. That is the person who contributes most to the paper, normally the actual writer.

If you feel unhappy with this, once you have your PhD then as intellectual owner of the data then you can put out publications with your name as first author. But whilst you have not been awarded your PhD, earning that should be your primary aim and you should not act to detract from that. Concentrat on getting the PhD.


Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

Wow OK then. That last comment was basically saying "bend over and take it from your supervisor as he is your God and you do not want to anger him".

Sorry, but I believe I have a spine and a bit of self respect. Sure I can graduate from my PhD with no first author publications, however having at least one first author publication makes my CV look so much better.

And NO, the person who physically sits down to write the paper is NOT the person who automatically gets their name as first author. It's the person who does the most work, including taking into account the effort of writing.

Why ask for advice when you've clearly already made your mind up about the issue? Mackem-beefy spends time replying to your concern and in your reply you basically tell him that he's talking crap and asking you to bow down to your sup? Read his post properly.

If you had taken the time to search through previous posts, you would have seen that this issue (regarding first author/not being first author/who should be first author/I don't want to submit the paper if I'm not first author) has come up time and time again on this forum. Use the search function and have a look through.

If you are desperate to be first author, despite the possibility of peeing off your supervisor which comes with all sorts of issues (one of which potentially being a bad reference from them; something a lot worse than not having a first author on your CV), then go ahead and give your sup an ultimatum.

His comment 'order to be arranged to fairly reflect contribution' is completely understandable.

You know what? At this point, to all intents and purposes, your supervisor IS your God. They can make or break your career and it would be pretty stupid to throw a hissy fit and 'remove permission' for your work to be published. By all means discuss it calmly with your supervisor and perhaps a compromise could be reached, but if I were you I'd be very careful about the approach I took.

Also, it is generally understood that the first author is the person who actually wrote the paper. By implication, they are often the person who did most of the work, as they understand it the best and therefore wrote the bulk of it, but not necessarily. The last name is the person who was officially in charge of the work (ie. your supervisor), and the people in the middle are those who contributed. Many journals now actually require you to list who did what in the production of the paper to ensure everyone listed actually did enough to be considered an 'author'. Additionally, having a first author paper in a low impact is not necessarily better than a co-author on a high impact - for example being a co-author on a Nature paper would far out-rank being a first author almost anywhere else, so it would be worth giving this some thought - obviously this will depend on the specific journals you're talking about.

Finally, your attitude speaks volumes about you - Mackem_Beefy is a highly respected poster on this forum who took the time to answer your question, so in future I'd give a bit more thought to how you respond.

I should probably add, although I don't have to justify the opinions we are giving you FOR FREE, that I happen to know Mackem_Beefy has a large number of publications under their belt, and I work in medical communications, so we do know what we're talking about.

======= Date Modified 25 Apr 2012 11:49:50 =======
======= Date Modified 25 Apr 2012 11:49:06 =======
OK well I'll come out and apologise for my knee jerk response. I do appreciate replies to my posts.

However, I am a bit sick and tired of the supervisor as a seemingly all-powerful non-benevolent being thing, especially after reading around here and finding so many students hard done by as a result of poor supervision. And yes, I did search but did not find anyone in a really similar position.

I'm thinking of it as the same as an investment decision. If I invest a huge time and effort into something (a paper) and expect an appropriate award (acknowledgement). And if I don't believe this will happen I have no reason to comply and am just being taken advantage of.

At the end of the day I believe the PhD system is broken. I just don't want to keep it how it is by bowing to what is has become.

Well if you feel you are being taken advantage of, then perhaps raising your concerns privately with your supervisor, as opposed to taking the attitude of 'if I'm not first author you can't use my data', may be a more appropriate path to take. I think the issue you are having is that you're very personally attached to your data/potential publication (as we all are) and therefore taking a step back and approaching the issue professionally would be helpful.

And yes, you may very well believe that the PhD system is 'broken' and that you don't want it to stay how it is, but the fact of the matter is you are just a mere PhD student at this present moment in time (as am I). If you feel so strongly about this maybe you should concentrate on finishing your PhD and THEN think about tackling the whole PhD system.

Well here we can find a point to agree on - the PhD system is fundamentally flawed. However, in your position I would be trying to work with my supervisor, rather than butting heads with them. What do you think the chances are of getting them to revert back to your original plan? Could you produce an outline for the publication you have in mind and see what they think? Sometimes being proactive and taking some of the work away from them can work in your favour.

I agree that it seems unfair to have to submit to their way of thinking, even when you disagree, but let's face it - they are the experts, you are the student. Therefore, sometimes you just have to swallow your pride and do what needs to be done. Maybe one day you'll be the supervisor and you'll see it from their point of view! I'm not saying you shouldn't have an opinion, I just think how you voice that opinion and how far you take it needs to be carefully thought through, or you could be creating problems for yourself that will have implications way beyond the publication of this one paper. Also, you don't know for certain that they intend to have someone else as first author - maybe if you make your voice heard strongly enough and make it clear that you are happy to write the paper, then you will be made first author anyway?

======= Date Modified 25 Apr 2012 12:59:51 =======

Broken it may be, but it's what we've got to work with. A PhD is not like anything we'll see in the real world, however, the supervisor (good or bad) is still the person who can make or break you as regards the PhD and regarding references for employment afterward. There's a big difference between expressing your opinion to them and standing your ground to your own detrement.

I had major problems with my supervisor for my second post-doc (man management issues - not the same supervisor as for my PhD), which led to my career taking a radically different direction to that I'd intended, so I know all too well what can happen. I saw out the contract, but left without a reference.

Yes, you can escalate your complaint and go to the Dean. However, Universities will go to great lengths to protect their reputation against perceived troublemakers (even when the person concerned is in the right) in such a way to attract as little attention as possible. People get frozen out or decisions are made about them in their absence that effectively end their career within academia. I've seen it happen twice to other people and I know of other stories.

Is it worth causing so much trouble over the position of your name on a paper? The important thing is you have your name on a paper and you have something to put on your CV. If you want to be first author, then as I said later publish after the PhD is finished and write a paper or two yourself.

On the other hand, if you want to fight these perceived injustices then I fully expect to drop back here in a couple of years time to find you complaining about an uncooperative supervisor, or you having received major corrections or an MPhil (or worse) because you didn't listen or fought your supervisor or department over a minor issue and he/she/they withdrew their cooperation.

The system isn't perfect and allows alot that is wrong to happen. However, do you want to make yourself the failing martyr with nothing to show for your three to five years of hard work?


Ian (Mackem_Beefy)